{JAM IN THE JAR}'s: January 2012

Answering the wrong question on ministerial salaries and my friend's status update spoke out my sentiments on the Ministerial pay cut:

I am here quoting directly from Siew Kum Hong:

But to my mind, the question of ministerial salaries is actually a political one (“how do we determine ministerial salaries in a way that Singaporeans can and will support”). And so, we ended up with a technocrat’s answer to a technical question, when what we really needed was a political answer to a political question. Since we didn’t get that, the political criticisms I had referred to will almost certainly continue.

It is clear from the report, and subsequent public comments, that the Government, and the Committee, continue to think about ministerial salaries in terms of private-sector salaries and sacrifice by office-holders, especially financial sacrifice.

The Government and the Committee see public service as a sacrifice, as if it is some sort of burden or imposition. But I, and I suspect most Singaporeans, see public service as a calling, as an honour and a privilege. It is something to be proud of, and not something to bemoan and begrudge. That is what the spirit of public service is about.

The Government and the Committee also see private-sector jobs as being closely equivalent to ministerial posts, as if running a company is very similar to running a country. I think most Singaporeans disagree, because they instinctively understand that running a country is a political undertaking that is fundamentally different from running a company, requiring as it does political sensitivities and skills that are not always or usually needed for corporate success (and here, I am talking about popular politics, not office politics).

I do want to be clear: I don’t necessarily think that S$1m a year is excessive. I don’t know for sure what number would or should work, but it probably won’t be a small number. I do think that Singaporeans should be more mindful of wanting ministerial salaries that are so low, that only rich people will run for office. I also think Singaporeans should be careful about cutting salaries so much, that our office-holders become distracted from the all-consuming job of running the country by personal financial needs.

So that begs the question of how ministerial salaries should be set. Well, I think the starting point should be that we do not want money to drive ministerial aspirations, but at the same time we do not want ministers to have to worry about their personal finances.

One way to do this is to figure out what a reasonable salary for a minister would be, such that he/she can maintain a reasonable lifestyle. And by reasonable lifestyle, I would think that the salary should be enough to comfortably cover mortgage payments for a reasonably-priced landed property in a reasonable location; payments for 2 cars for the family; education for a minister’s children (including overseas education); some retirement savings; and so on.

This may or may not be a big number, but then at least it becomes more politically defensible in terms of this being what is necessary to allow the minister to do his/her job without undue distractions and while allowing the minister to maintain a reasonable standard of living. It also completely strips away the effects of the widening income gap, although it does become subject to changes in the cost of living. It represents an approach that can be explained to people and which people can instinctively understand (viz. the need to take care of one’s family).

Sadly, this is not the approach that has been adopted for Singapore. Which is why I think Singaporeans will continue to be dissatisfied with the level of ministerial salaries in Singapore.

And here I quote Janice's status update:

Having seen first-hand how tough Minster's jobs are, how punishing their packed schedule is, and how complex the decisions they have to make on a daily basis, I too, think that Ministerial salaries should not be cut to the extent that dissuades capable people from stepping forward to serve. However, the issue on how to determine Ministerial salaries (whether by way of pegging to the private sector's top earners, or by calculating a 'reasonable' salary to maintain a 'reasonable' lifestyle) will also be subject to much endless debate. The fact of the matter is that political discourse in Singapore should not be focussed on Ministerial salaries, but on the evaluation of the Minister's effectiveness, their ability to represent the common people, and the results of what they manage to achieve within their term. That is the true measure of worth - if they are prove themselves worthy, I personally have no issue with their salaries. (Apart from being jealous, that is.) If they are not worthy, they don't deserve to be there, and so the voters should reflect that. Of course, this necessarily means that the electorial process and structure should allow that flexibility - but that is a separate debate in itself.

As for PSD's reponse to the impact of the pay revision for the civil servants in the article Ministerial pay cut to affect civil servants?, my take is yes, there should be. I do not see how the 84 ministers can be on a scheme that is entirely off the current pay structure of typical civil servant. It is as though they get minimal support from their subordinates, which is hardly the case. I am not suggesting a similar structure for all, but the income gap should be narrowed especially so since the civil service is Singapore's largest employer. And if high salaries are thought to be a deterrent for accepting corruption, then I must say that civil servants' pay has to be revised upwards given the number of notorious cases that has happened in the past 2 years alone.

Still, I am pretty curious about what exactly do the Ministers earn before they join public service and what are the basis for the pay structures for civil servants adopted in other developed countries. The current TOR has rigidly set-up the framework for the pay revision that does nothing much in providing in-depth analysis, which by itself is questionable not so much the absolute value of the pay.

Read this from SDP

Lazing around in the house on the second day of 2012, the last day of my long break before getting back to work. Last week of 2011 was a blast, and to be fair, the whole of 2011 was. Apart from landing myself in a fabulous job, we met buddy who has brought so much joy and liveliness. We have now spent 1.5 years in our own nest and as time goes by, have ironed out issues we had before, gotten used to who-says-what in the house and are continuously learning to accomodate each other's needs and habits. For 2-3 months now, we have opened the flood gate and are anticipating arrival of a new member in 2012. I am glad that in the past months the wait has given us opportunities to discuss about the impending change, our interpretation of modern parenting, etc. and are preparing ourselves to receive a new life in 2012 patiently as the wait goes on. 2011 was a hectic year for me, particularly the November-December period, drowning me in meetings/work and I was feeling the fatigue from all the travellings I have to make.

All in all 2011 was fantastic. And so I hope, the force continues to be with me, my family and friends in year 2012!

{JAM IN THE JAR}'s

Tuesday 31 January 2012

Poverty vs wealth

Monday 30 January 2012

Yangon Day 5

Friday 27 January 2012

Yangon Day 2

Friday 20 January 2012

回家的感觉

Monday 16 January 2012

Open heart

Thursday 12 January 2012

Leaving home for another home

Saturday 7 January 2012

We love our buddy Chi

Friday 6 January 2012

Reflecting the current Ministerial pay cut in civil servants' salaries

Monday 2 January 2012

Hello 2012, I have been waiting!